B.P.SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner herein is an advocate practising before this Court. He has filed the instant petition in public interest with a view to preventing the deteriorating standard of the legal profession in the interest of proper administration of justice as also to maintain the dignity and decorum of the legal profession. He has prayed that this Court should issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the High Court to make rules under S. 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 , laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate may be permitted to practise in the High Court and in the Courts subordinate thereto. In sum and substance his grievance is that entry into the legal profession with a right to practise before the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto on the mere strength of a law degree and enrolment by the State Bar Council is not sufficient to maintain the high standard which the legal profession is expected to maintain. This consequently results in seriously impairing the administration of justice since the legal profession is an intrinsic part of the justice delivery system in this country.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the legal profession has lost the respect which it enjoyed earlier on account of the drastic fall in the standard of the legal profession which has failed to maintain the academic and ethical standard set for it. The profession which is considered to be a noble profession and which aids the administration of justice by rendering professional services to the litigants, as also assistance to the Court in doing justice, is losing its reputation, its professional standard and the high esteem in which it was held by the people of this country. It has, therefore, become necessary in the changed circumstances for the High Court to intervene by framing rules under S. 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 with a view to weeding out those who are unfit to practice before a Court of law, and to permit only those to act and appear before Courts of law who pass the rigorous test laid down by the rules that may be framed by the High Court. It is, therefore, suggested that on the lines on which the Hon ble Supreme Court of India has framed rules under Art. 145 of the Constitution of India, this Court should also frame rules providing for Advocates- on-Record who may be so designated after they have fulfilled the necessary requirement of training and passing the test prescribed by rules framed by the High Court. It is submitted that the rules already framed by the Patna High Court contained in Chapter XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules are not sufficient to deal with the situation as it prevails today, nor can it prevent the deterioration in the standard of the legal profession, obviously affecting the interest of justice. The rules framed by the Patna High Court permit every advocate to appear and plead before the High Court and, therefore, any person who has a valid enrolment as an advocate under the Advocates Act can appear before the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto without being subjected to any further test for his suitability to practise in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. It is absolutely essential that the Patna High Court should frame rules prescribing a test/examination similar to the one conducted by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, and permit only those advocates to file appearance or act for a party in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto, who have passed the prescribed test/examination and have undergone the necessary training making them eligible for taking the said test/examination. It is further submitted that though under Rule 11 of Chapter XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules it is provided that no advocate shall be permitted to file an appointment or memorandum of appearance in any proceeding in which another advocate is already on record for the same party, save with the written consent of the former Advocates-on-Reco